Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality • Hacker News Board

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#41

Post by FilterSweep » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:24 PM UTC

ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too.

The sarcasm in your post is, funnily enough, the opposite of the truth because they actually have MORE say than people living in coastal cities[0]

Not only that, but as populations in major cities increase, and number of electoral votes stay the same, this effect increases [1]

[0] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_w...

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/1...

(Ed: fixed AMP link)

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#42

Post by stcredzero » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

The FCC's newly passed privacy rules, meanwhile, force Internet providers to give consumers a say in how their most sensitive personal data is used and shared.

Whenever such issues comes up, I come out and advocate for the use of "Reverse-DRM" -- Instead of big companies using crypto against individuals, individuals should be using such tech to protect themselves against big companies. Often, people will counter by saying that laws are enough. However: "Possession is nine tenths of the law" and "Opportunity makes a thief." Such laws are necessary, but those would be way easier to enforce and pass in the first place if consumers had some form of lock that companies had to circumvent. This election also shows that laws shouldn't be the exclusive protection.

It is precisely the asymmetric nature of power between companies and individuals that makes the corporate use of DRM against individuals so horrible, and the individual use of DRM against corporations so potentially beneficial. However, there are so many online who simply knee-jerk against the idea of DRM without thinking about this, it will probably never happen.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#43

Post by ci5er » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

saboot wrote: post #37

ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

I have talked directly to people in higher positions in telecom industries. They are expecting a reversal on net neutrality towards more "market-friendly" positions. Yes, this is a personal anecdote. No, I don't have a citation. Hope for the best, but expect and prepare for the worst.

The executive staff at telecoms I have talked to have mixed expectations. I don't know anyone at/with cable -- which I think this was aimed at in the first place.

The reclassification of services necessary to make the ruling in the first place was (I believe) over-reach.

But, people appear to like the outcome, so they don't quibble with the methods.

I don't dislike that particular outcome, but worry about the executive branch unilaterally extending their own purview. That territorial expansion would allow for a lot of decisions that I might like a lot less. That probably just means that I worry too much about what will happen when a guy I don't like is in charge...

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#44

Post by ajross » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

skirunman wrote: post #40

dcposch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too No. Everyone should have an equal say. That's what national popular vote ensures. Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy. I completely agree with your point about limiting…

Exactly, this is not "democracy". However, the USA is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Electing the POTUS via a national popular vote would be rife with more problems than it solves. This article does a good job explaining this topic. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-elector...

That's a Heritage piece (republican think tank, and not even one with a particular philosophical lean: Heritage is a straight ticket republican mouthpiece) written in the days before the 2004 election when it looked like Bush was going to lose the popular vote again like he did in 2000. That's, like, the precise opposite of a measured review of the subject.

Seriously?

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#45

Post by moomin » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

luso_brazilian wrote: post #13

The part of the Net Neutrality debate that is so often disregarded (and probably the reason conservatives oppose it vehemently) is that it gives FCC (an unelected body of government, part of the executive branch) power to legislate. Not passing judgement or touching the merit of the whole subject but it is a very consistent position of the right in the United States to oppose regulation passed down by unelected offic…

You're right, that's the argument. It ignores the fact that the position makes no sense. In the UK, most laws are made by civil servants, under the direction of ministers, within the mandate of parliament. Under Brexit, this function will grow, not shrink.

Stephen Phillips, a prominent and heavily Brexit-supporting Conservative, appears to have figured out that Brexit means a huge increase in executive power, not a reduction. He's resigned from the party. Sadly, he appears to be alone.

In practical terms, the amount of legislation a modern country needs is far in excess of what its elected bodies can deliver. The question isn't if someone other than the body should be legislating, it's who, and with what oversight.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#46

Post by FilterSweep » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:29 PM UTC

skirunman wrote: post #40

dcposch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too No. Everyone should have an equal say. That's what national popular vote ensures. Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy. I completely agree with your point about limiting…

Exactly, this is not "democracy". However, the USA is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Electing the POTUS via a national popular vote would be rife with more problems than it solves. This article does a good job explaining this topic. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-elector...

Granted we are in fact a constitutional republic, presidents and congress ranging Bush to Obama would have to stop the "make the world safe for democracy" rhetoric as a "meta-reason"(to make up a word) for going to war.

Politicians across the spectrum have either defrauded their people with "democracy" rhetoric, or accepted it as a de facto standard for the modern age. Which one of the two, I'm clearly not possessing of the answers.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#47

Post by ZeroGravitas » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:31 PM UTC

skirunman wrote: post #40

dcposch wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lesson that a lot of anti-Trumpers appear to have taken away from this election is that the electoral college is bad because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too No. Everyone should have an equal say. That's what national popular vote ensures. Clinton got over 2m more votes than her opponent, but will not be President. That's not democracy. I completely agree with your point about limiting…

Exactly, this is not "democracy". However, the USA is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. Electing the POTUS via a national popular vote would be rife with more problems than it solves. This article does a good job explaining this topic. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-elector...

The US is a democracy. It is also a constitutional republic. There's no conflict between the terms.

The Heritage Foundation is smart enough to realise the EC favours Republicans and therefore the policies it promotes and so will spin anything to make that seems like a good idea, because the will of the people being enacted would work against their goals.

Finally, and more a reply to the parent comment, even a popular vote within a two-party system can be suboptimal in some ways and so be less than an ideal "democracy". Ranked choice voting or similar systems can stop "regulatory capture" of the two main parties from denying the voters a legitimate voice.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#48

Post by throwaway5752 » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

Why don't you take him at his word? It seems extremely unwise not to. Do you know who Jeffrey Eisenach and Mark Jamison are?

edit: perhaps more constructively - if he were to be serious about dismantling Net Neutrality, what would he have done differently than exactly what he's doing now? Beyond his most insane proposals (Muslim registration and internment/concentration camps, building a physical 2000 mile wall on the Mexican border) he seems to be making all the necessary, concrete appointments necessary to put the necessary people in place to follow through on his campaign pledges.

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#49

Post by lintiness » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #39

ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

"if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes, then they should probably win the election."

what if she spent TWICE the money getting them?

Re: Donald Trump could dismantle net neutrality

#50

Post by tallowen » Fri, Nov 25, 2016, 5:37 PM UTC

throwaway729 wrote: post #39

ci5er wrote: post #31

Well, sure. In theory, he could do anything by fiat within the bounds of established regulatory discretion. Of course, I wouldn't worry too much about all of the stuff that "Trump could do" until he gets around to doing it. He talks a lot. And, I suspect he won't have time to do all of the stuff that people worry about him potentially doing... As frustratingly slow as congressional action is -- it's more resistant to…

> because it lets people who don't live on the coasts have a say too I'm from the midwest and I still don't understand this sentiment. Why should the power of your vote depend on where you choose to lay your head down at night? That seems extremely anti-democratic to me. It's not that people who don't live on the coasts shouldn't have a say. It's that if someone wins a popular vote by 2 million fucking votes , then t…

> The house also favors less populous states, even if not by design.

Out of curiosity, how does this happen in practice? My understanding was that seats were divided up by population (giving equal voice to those in more densely populated areas).